Archive for March 2009

New Hampshire House of Representatives Makes State Third to Redefine Marriage

Politicians deny voters right to vote on the definition of marriage.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives became the third state to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage” today. By just seven votes, politicians passed the legislation, despite significant public opposition to the measure.

“This is precisely why 94% of West Virginians believe voters should strengthen the definition of marriage,” said Jeremy Dys, president and general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia. “Public policy decisions of this magnitude should be decided by the public. Our legislature – and all elected officials – should support the right of the people to make this decision.”

Legislators in West Virginia have been reluctant to act upon a resolution that would allow a referendum on the definition of marriage to go to the people for a vote in 2009. Just two committee chairs in the House of Delegates are preventing 1.8 million voters in West Virginia from deciding this issue democratically.

West Virginia has no legally binding definition of marriage, making West Virginia vulnerable to the chaotic strategy of groups intent on expanding the definition of marriage in the Mountain State through expensive legal battles. Though several legislators cite current statutory protections as adequate, none have allowed West Virginia voters to strengthen their own law.

More information on the 19-word proposal that would allow West Virginia voters to strengthen the definition of marriage is available at www.wv4marriage.com.

Yesterday, the Family Policy Council of West Virginia organized two town hall meetings. One was in Charleston within the district of Delegate Carrie Webster. The other, within the district of Del. Barbara Fleischauer in Morgantown. Each delegate – who are most responsible for denying you your right to vote on the definition of marriage – was invited in advance, but neither chose to attend and listen to the concerns voiced by the voters in their district.

WDTV in Clarksburg covered the event in Morgantown and has this report. WSAZ, WCHS-TV, and the Dominion Post also provided coverage.

Public policy decisions of this magnitude should be made by the public. Our legislature should do everything to ensure your right to vote and participate in the democratic process. Two legislators should not be allowed to prevent 1.8 million voters from debating this issue, just to satisfy their own personal political agenda.

For more information on our efforts to secure your right to vote on the definition of marriage, go to www.wv4marriage.com.

Ryan, formerly a lesbian involved in a domestic partnership in Seattle Washington with a woman named Lara Embry, is now a born-again Christian engaged to marry a man. That’s where her court troubles began since previously she had an agreement with Embry for visitation of her 9-year old daughter after the couple split up in 2004.

When Ryan became concerned about her daughter’s visits with Embry she discontinued them. Embry then “demanded that a Florida court enforce the Washington adoption decree and allow her to continue visiting Ryan’s daughter,” according to the story on World Net Daily.

But one Florida court has already dismissed Embry’s petition, citing Statute 63.042, the states DOMA law, and other court precedent. Now Embry is taking her case to the Second District Court of Appeals in Florida.

Matt Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel said, “The state should be allowed to abide by its current guidelines and consider the best interest of the child. Florida has the authority to establish its own policy regarding marriage and the definition of family. Florida protects its children by preferring they be placed in an optimal environment with a mom and a dad.”

And here is the point I want to make clear in this case and other such cases: individual states should always be allowed to make laws and then abide by those laws based on the will of that states people. If laws from any state can be enforced in any other state, what is the point in even having the law? This idea that the law from one state is enforceable in another state leans toward a socialistic government where sovereignty does not exist at all; which also means the will of the people does not exist.

Staver was right in saying, “The state of Washington cannot rewrite Florida adoption law and commandeer the state to enforce its contrary policy.”

This trend of judges overstepping their bounds to enforce out-of-state laws is nothing more than a hijacking of state sovereignty in favor of big government control. This is entirely against the Constitution which allows for states to hold to individual laws based on the voting will of its residents. It’s what makes each state and ultimately this country great

Stories such as those of Lisa Miller and Kimberly Ryan are destined to be more frequent in light of our nation’s current moral and political climate. We have attempted to remove all absolutes and the concrete foundation of family based on a father and mother from our society. Did we really think there would be no consequences?

At this point in time it is safe to say that the American judicial system is completely out of control and many judges are no longer upholding the Constitution, they are rewriting it according to their own opinions.

Recently Ms. Mills and her husband divorced. As part of the divorce Judge Ned Mangum ordered Ms. Mills to place her children in public school though all three are thriving under her teaching in home school.

I can’t even begin to count the ways that Judge Mangum has overstepped his bounds and infringed on the freedoms of Ms. Mills and her children. Obviously if the children are thriving in their home school setting it is reflective of a stable, secure home environment. If this is the case then there is no justifiable reason for them to be removed.

But upon further reading of this story the judge’s true intentions become crystal clear. Judge Mangum has said that one of the reasons he ordered them into public school was because “It will do them a great benefit to be in the public schools, and they will challenge some of the ideas that you’ve taught them…”

Allow me to translate that for you. Judge Mangum wants them in public school so they can be indoctrinated with evolution, free sex, homosexual sensitivity and appreciation, and many very liberal views that I am sure go against everything Ms. Mills has taught her children thus far.

The judge knows that if the children stay in home-schooling they will be grounded in conservative and religious views which go against everything HE believes, and the only way to avoid that is by placing them in a school system which teaches kids how to be media-fed, government controlled robots. Unlike the current education they are getting which grounds them in faith, family, and critical thinking.

Frankly I agree with Alan Keyes when he said, “If his idea of socialization includes the need to challenge the Christian ideas their mother has taught them, then he not only interferes with her natural right to raise up her children, he tramples on one of the most important elements of the free exercise of religion.”

The very idea that a judge would infringe on the freedom of a mother to choose where and how she educates her children should outrage every citizen. Where does it end? Will judges now begin picking schools for our kids? Telling us where we can and cannot go to church? Deciding our professions for us?

More and more it seems we are leaning toward socialism. We have a current presidential administration that wants a big government with its hand in every facet of our lives. This is not the time to get complacent. The moment we decide to stop caring is the moment we wake up and realize we’ve lost our freedoms.

I came across a story in the AP News detailing one of the first cases challenging the federal DOMA law that was enacted to deny access to federal benefits for same-sex couples.

No doubt that this is only the first of many lawsuits challenging this federal law that was signed into law in 1996 by then President Bill Clinton.

This lawsuit, brought by more than a dozen people from Massachusetts claims that the federal DOMA law discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them access to death benefits, pensions, health care, and tax breaks associated with marriage.

But let’s back up and get the facts straight before thinking that some vast majority of Americans is being discriminated against.

Right now 45 states have laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So far, every one of the 30 states that have sought to change their state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman have done so successfully. And even when activist judges in California tried usurp the will of the people and legislate from their benches, the people spoke and overturned their ruling which allowed same-sex marriage, and then amended their state constitution so that activist judges could not bypass them again.

So it should go without saying that we are talking about a minority group of people who would seek to legalize same-sex marriage and not the majority of Americans. In fact, I would even be so bold as to say that if an amendment to the Constitution of the United States was sought, defining marriage as one man and one woman, it would be easily passed. Which is why many current lawmakers do not want to see such an amendment brought to the people.

And though the current lawsuit in Massachusetts is only seeking to overturn the part of the DOMA law that denies them access to federal programs and benefits, you can be sure that if successful they will not stop there. They will seek to overturn DOMA, and legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states; or in the very least require each state to recognize same-sex marriage whether it is legal or not in that state.

A lawsuit of this kind is a trojan horse just waiting to get inside the walls of marriage and bring every moral fiber this country has stood upon for centuries to the ground. We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled, or duped into believing that this is simply about money. This is about forcing every person to recognize the legitamacy and affirm the inherent goodness of same-sex marriage. And yet for many of us that goes against everything we stand for and believe.

Please continue to contact your state and federal lawmakers and voice your support for DOMA and other pro-family legislation. It is “we the people” that these lawmakers work for, and they need to hear from us.

I recently read two stories which stand in stark contrast to one another and show just how different culture and society can be, from one state to another, from one court to another.

One story is the continuing coverage of 6-year old Isabella, whose mother Lisa Miller is fighting the courts so that her daughter does not have to endure unsupervised visits with Miller’s former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins.

The other story comes out of Florida where the Liberty Counsel has filed an amicus brief to further strengthen Florida’s law which says that adoptive children should be placed in a home with a mom and dad because it is in the best interest of the child.

If you take a moment to read these two very different stories you will get an idea of just how diverse the thoughts are regarding children, adoption, and the idea of homosexual parents; not to mention just how messy and confusing lawsuits could become.

The new appeal in the case of Lisa Miller and her 6-year-old daughter, Isabella, by Liberty Counsel asks for a determination on whether the Virginia Constitution is the controlling legal authority in the state.

The case is complex, because Miller was in a same-sex “marriage” in Vermont, where her former partner, Janet Jenkins, remains. But Miller’s daughter was born in Virginia, and both live there now. The custody arguments have been conducted in court systems in both states.

The appeal asks the court to refuse to enforce the Vermont custody order, which requires the child spend time with Jenkins, “based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent making a legal distinction between recognition and enforcement,” according to Liberty Counsel.

“While the Full Faith and Credit Clause may require registration of the Vermont order, it cannot constitutionally require enforcement,” the non-profit legal group explained. “Moreover, the federal Defense of Marriage Act exempts states from even recognizing out-of-state, same-sex unions.” (Story continued here…)

Miami, FL – Today Liberty Counsel is filing an amicus brief in support of a 1977 Florida law that bans practicing homosexuals from adopting children. Last year Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman wrote that the law violates equal protection rights for homosexuals and that there is no valid reason to consider homosexuality when approving adoption. Liberty Counsel successfully defended the same law at a United States Court of Appeals.

The law has also been upheld as constitutional by other Florida state courts of appeal. Although the decisions by the appeals courts are binding on the circuit judge, Judge Lederman lawlessly disregarded these legal precedents. Liberty Counsel’s brief states that the Florida law is backed up by sound reasons to prefer that children be permanently adopted by homes that will provide the opportunity for a mom and a dad. Homosexual adoption, by its very nature, deprives children of ever having the opportunity of being reared by both a mother and a father.(Story continued here…)